He's lecturing us?

Since when did even a speck of frugality become unreasonable?

President Obama wants the federal debt ceiling raised in order to keep on overspending, and without any conditions whatsoever. He won’t negotiate.

And he has the gall to claim Republicans are the ones “holding a gun at the head of the American people” because they want to use the debt ceiling debate to work out a deal to slow the government’s out-of-control spending?

This man is spending America to oblivion, and he has the nerve to try to say it’s irresponsible of House Republicans to try to slow him down?

How dare he.

“They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,” Obama said – as if the money that Republicans save would go into their own pockets, and not taxpayers’.

Think about that for a minute: He’s appealing to the American people that Republicans may not let him spend even more of our money. Outraged yet?

Can you imagine a family in which one spouse accuses the other of trying to exact a “ransom” by trying to slow the family’s rate of overspending?

This is Mr. Bipartisanship – Mr. “I’ll Listen to Any Good Ideas.”

Nope. No negotiating. Just give me more money.

Mr. President, you may have won re-election and retained the Senate, but Republicans were put in charge of the House to act as a check on the other party’s unfettered power – particularly the power of the purse.

You are not a dictator, Mr. President. We suggest you act like a U.S. president and be open to negotiation with the opposing party. That’s the beauty of the American system of government. One president, but 535 members of Congress. Checks and balances. Give and take. Diffuse power.

And, after four years of now trillion-dollar deficits, when are you going to even consider a little thrift?

How is it unreasonable for Republicans to ask for an atom of a speck of a sliver of a shred of frugality? Every family, every business, every city, every hamlet, every state in this nation has had to find some savings in this economy. The only thing stopping the federal government from that bit of sanity is its loosely limited borrowing power – which has been so abused, at $16 trillion and counting, that the nation’s very economy may someday be in jeopardy because of it.

That’s the real gun to the head of America, Mr. President.

And just whose fingerprints are on it?

We are sorely disappointed, though not all that surprised, at this president’s unnecessarily antagonistic approach to solving this nation’s problems.

As conservative talker Rush Limbaugh noted after the president’s lecture, Mr. Obama “really never talks about plans and proposals to solve problems. What he does is position his political opponents as the enemy.”

Likewise, even liberal columnist Dana Milbank – noting that the president called himself a “pretty friendly guy” at the end of the press conference Monday – wrote, “The claim might have been a touch more plausible if he hadn’t spent the bulk of the previous hour demonstrating just how adversarial he could be.”

In addition, the president’s outrageous threat that Social Security payments and Armed Forces paychecks will be endangered by a failure to raise the debt ceiling is wholly disingenuous: If money becomes tight due to a lack of borrowing authority, the president himself can decide which bills to pay.

Meanwhile, this president – whose own budgets the past four years have yet to earn the vote of even one member of Congress, Republican or Democrat – has officially notified Congress that he will not produce a budget by Feb. 4 as required by law. In essence, the president is about to break the law.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I wonder how history is going to look back at conservatives? Historians will try to figure out why they were called such vile names in the media such as racist, reactionary and rabid people with an extreme goal. Then they will look at their only goal of not spending too much and taxing too much and say, “Huh?”

already lives in an Orwellian world, an unperson, fed, clothed, and housed by big government, and trained to vote for big brother.
School choice is the first step in getting off this government plantation.

Not only is the article correct about his arrogance this time but 6 years ago Then Senator Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling and call it “A failure of leadership" among other things, and derided Bush. Now Obama has asked TWICE to raise the debt ceiling. If once was a lack of leadership under Bush I guess twice under Obama is a ...well let's just call it what it is hypocrisy!!!!

Absolute dictator. Did you read he is handing down his executive orders addressing gun bans and "more than a dozen executive orders aimed at circumventing congressional opposition to stricter gun control." Circumventing congress isn't in his domain-I see impeachment in the future. A constitutional crisis is at hand and Obama has likely just dealt his last hand. He should be in prison for murdering an amerian citizen without due process (but also being a dope fiend and grand theft auto which he freely admits). Of course what do you expect from a pseudointellectual who was a poor student (by his own admission) who some how gets in Ivy league school (because Barry Soetero became Kenyan born Barak Obama to get in the school-yep he lied he was born in Hawaii)and learns nothing (he thinks there are 57 states) and would defy logic because of ideology of "fairness" which really is "unfairness". He did admit he followed communism and loves it-by his own admission sought out communist heros. So is he a liar or what?

Why does the AC not use its crack research staff to show the percent increase in debt by President? I do find it interesting that in doing a search on the the term "debt ceiling" in the AC gives me 1 "business brief" from the AP in 2003, 1 letter to the editor from 2004, and 1 "special columnist" from a Paulbot saying the "fair" tax wouldn't fix the spending problem from 2007. That's it. No editorials berating the idea. Of course the AC then may have just been honest and knew the debt ceiling had nothing to do with future spending, only debt already incurred (much like continuing to pay your mortgage of car loan). Kill the date range and all of a sudden its 89 stories and 2 blogs (of course that would include the other 3, so only 86). What could have changed? Since the budgets and spending are pretty much in the same range as the previous administration and debt projection are roughly the same. It wouldn't be partisan would it? They could also count the number filibusters and cloture votes by each Congress to see who's blocking legislation. I have no idea how a President who has his opposition say their number one job was to make him a one term President (not the economy, not jobs, not ending the wars, although their number 2 job seemed to be regulating woman parts), yelled at him in a joint session of Congress, question his citizenship, make up plain out crazy stuff about his health care legislation, his place of birth, his citizenship, call him Marxist, socialist, communist, liken him to Hitler and Stalin, refused to negotiate with him and when they did refused to give an inch, when he gave the ok to their demands they moved the yardstick and demanded more, could have any kind of animosity towards the GOP.

Exactly Tech. Obama is using the same failed strategy and policy of Bush-as you say there is no difference. He demonizes Bush and then does the same thing-its idiotic. I equally agree the GOP is no better than any Dem. It's ridiculous. Politics is poison to any real discussion or application of logic. They should all be ashamed. The reality is some progressive ideas are great as are some conservative ideas but the political divide would never let any of that come to fruition. Both sides spend too much time demonizing the other as a racist [filtered word] or marxist dictator.Great way to solve problems.

Defense is costing our entire revenue after payroll taxes are removed. There's no way to cut enough from any program to balance it and fund anything else in the government. Cut defense 50% or more. Then we'll only spend around 25% of the worlds military spending but I'm sure we'll survive. We haven't tried any progressive ideas since the 1950" and 1960's. Look how horrible things were then. Oh wait. That's when we created the middle class and people were living the American dream (white people anyway). Since we've been practicing the right wing "voodoo" economics and killed regulation, we've had the middle class die and the American dream disappear. The only gains have gone to a very few at the very top. In 1980, CEO's made 42 times what the average worker earned. Today, it's 380 times the pay of the average worker. Productivity has skyrocketed yet pay has stagnated. In other words, you get to do the work of 2 or 3 people for the same pay and all of the savings go to the CEO. The top one tenth of one percent have seen 36% of economic gains 1979-2007. Maybe we need to go back to the progressive plan instead of the right wing one. Evidently we couldn't do much worse. Maybe the people really doing the work will see some of the gains.

You are missing the whole point. You always justify Obama's actions by pointing to others that done the same thing. They all were wrong by increasing the debt, some worse that others. You are living in the past. We are at the end of the road now. America is faced with a debt crisis that threatens to take down the whole economy. Take a few minutes to research what Obama has said about the evils of debts and deficits in the past. If he would only follow his past rhetoric. I guess you were against him when he spoke evil of overspending a few years ago.

Why does the President use the scare tactic of saying "if we don't raise the debt limit, there will be no pay for the military, no SS checks" but you NEVER hear him say that welfare checks won't go out, or food stamps wont' go out? I wonder why that is?

The scenario you are laying out is exactly the kind of scare tactic that Obumbler and his minions like to put out there, as if it were actually true. It's just his normal level of sleaziness and hatred toward his fellow Americans.

The military and the VA system might take hits right along with fed employees and all the rest of us, but as was said above, quite cogently in fact, Obumbler gets to decide which bills to pay. Even he won't be so stupid that he would stop paying soldiers and taking care of vets, no matter how much he enjoys threatening to do it.

It would be moot to worry about gun control anymore, with an armed military force unable to feed their families while putting their lives at risk for the sake of the politicians' objectives. That would be a very bad idea indeed.

Also, Techfan says "In 1980, CEO's made 42 times what the average worker earned. Today, it's 380 times the pay of the average worker."

So? What amount would YOU say is ok for them to earn? I think the share holders should set the amount that the CEO earns, not some outsider who is simply envious of their wealth while taking no risk.......oh wait...they already do.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

I don't. There is simply no argument defending the lack of leadership skills this President processes. Even the liberal white house press asked him yesterday. "Hey, have you ever considered being a little more social with the Republicans"? Even they may be starting to catch on. Having said that, the Debt Ceiling is a losing battle for the Republicans. It's a mistake.

Seriously, don't you think that this editorial is also quite antagonistic? Well, whatever. The Tea Party members in Congress have to date not negotiated at all in any meaningful way. What I mean by that is to say that they have raised vague complaints about big government, like the complaints in this editorial, but have presented no actual detailed proposal about which government expenditures that they want to cut and by how much. Do you want to cut national defense? Get rid of Medicare? Social Security? Or what? Saying that they want to cut big government isn't a policy. that's just a slogan. A policy would be to list the programs they want to cut--which they will never, ever do. The price of gaining a slice of power is to present a constructive alternative. The Tea Party doesn't have one to offer. Sorry, guys. Have a nice day and enjoy our stunningly lovely CRSA winter.

And, sorry, no, the President does not have statutory authority to "decide which bills to pay." Nor does the Treasury department have software that would enable him to do so. ACES, please make some effort to inform yourself about American government before you express your opinions. You edit a major newspaper, and that carries the responsibility to engage in at least minimal research--at least as much research as would be required for a grade school homework project. Good heavens.

Funny Rhetor mentions only cutting medicare and social security....things that we pay into. He doesn't mention cutting welfare, medicaid, and food stamps....things that people draw on for life without contributing a cent.

As for the ridiculous statement "The Tea Party doesn't have one to offer."

They have offered MANY budgets, but the Democrats in the senate refuse to vote on them.....how many budgets have the Democrats passed?

How is it unreasonable for Republicans to ask for an atom of a speck of a sliver of a shred of frugality?
-------
No spending bill can reach the President's desk without first passing the Republican-controlled House. Not only can Republicans ask for this frugality, they can enforce it. They have chosen not to do so. Claims that continued overspending are solely the fault of the President or Senate Democrats are false.

The Republicans have not said they are not willing to raise the debt ceiling. The have said they wanted some matching spending cuts in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling. Seems very reasonable to me. Obama is the one refusing to negotiate ANY spending cuts.

Techfan....."when he gave the ok to their demands they moved the yardstick and demanded more"

Obama was the one who moved the yardstick on the "Grand Deal" after he and Boehner had an agreement. Obama called Boehner and told him he wanted MORE tax increases than they had just agreed on a couple of hours before. Boehner hung up on him and good on him for doing that. Fact check THAT one.

And Techfan, are you saying that Obama has not increased spending? Please explain the unpaid for spending on Obamacare that results in an ADDITIONAL $trillion dollars of unpaid for spending over the next few years.

A whole paragraph full of a one sentence spew and no relevant truth in any of it. When I see that I envision the writer's head spinning around and this incomprehensible spew of green stuff coming out of their mouth.

And just for you folks that keep harping on the military budget, which I admit could, and should, be trimmed....but not slashed. The news out of Washington this morning is that in the next 10 years WELFARE spending will be 25% of the budget. NOT Social Security. NOT Medicare. Those items are not included. Just WELFARE spending, cash payments, SNAP, food stamps, Section 8 subsidies, and Medicaid will be 25% of our spending. Throw in the INTEREST on our DEBT, the military spending, and the payments to people who contributed to, and are rightfully entitled to, the Social Security and Medicare programs and we cannot pay the bills even at the current rate of spending $1.40 for every $1.00 we take in. We are officially a bad investment. The world WILL quit loaning us money. We WILL suffer a Greece style collapse. Kiss your children and grandchildren NOW and tell them you are sorry for what we did.

The welfare slugs are killing this country. Time to sprinkle salt on them, dry up the slime, and let the people willing to work move on without the anchor chain around their necks.